Skip to main content

About your Search

20130121
20130129
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
from now. this bill says if you don't vote for the ryan budget, because we know the votes are on the other side of the aisle to pass the ryan budget, then we go back to putting the credit of the united states at risk. the last time the american people looked at the ryan budget, they rejected it overwhelmingly. do you remember the election of november just a couple months ago? they rejected those cuts in medicare, those cuts in medicaid, those -- the tax cuts for the wealthy. and yet all of this is being put back on the table by holding the debt limit hostage, holding the credit hostage, holding american jobs hostage. so if you don't vote for that budget, then they get to play with the debt limit again. they get to play with the debt limit again. we got big lists to make between now and then, folks. we have sequestration. we have tax reform. we have a budget to write. let's just get down to the business and do it. just do it. don't play with the credit of this country. don't play with people's pension plans. don't play with the interest rates of corporations have to pay to
myself with the remarks of my colleague, mr. ryan. but i would also mention the caveat that has gotten a bit of attention is the no-pay clause without having the senate or the house, either respective chamber, not pass the budget and whether or not that meets the constitutionality, the confines of the 27th amendment. i'm not a constitutional attorney. i am not an attorney of any type. we've -- our committee has looked at this quite a bit on our side. we think that placing the members' pay in escrow until such time as that particular chamber passes a budget is constitutional. it meets the constitutionality of the 27th amendment. as long as we -- the member actually is paid by the end of the 113th congress. there's been some questions. somebody asked me just on the floor actually for instance -- let's say, you know, x amount of times passed before the payment would be made whether or not that congress should be -- whether or not the escrow account would be accruing interest for the members and if the interest is not accrued, would that be a problem with the 27th amendment? but interest o
a reaction to congressman paul ryan saying that the president needs a strongman argument in his inaugural address when he talked about the fact that the united states is not a nation of takers. congressman ryan said that the president misconstrued what he meant, what ryan meant when he used that term? a nation of takers? >> the president mentioned chairman ryan, but i mean, that phrase has been used by a number of republicans including paul ryan. the president's point was that these programs, social security and medicare in particular, have been enormously valuable to seniors in our country and to providing the security that has allowed for stronger economic growth and stronger job creation and a stronger middle class. i mean, the facts and figures on what the plight of the -- polite of the nation's seniors -- plight of the nation's seniors was before social security is well known. the insecurity that seniors face or would face if medicare were voucherized and the costs were shifted to them, if they had a limited amount of money to spend on health care and the rest was up to them, i think
're the party of small government. americans are confident in the post-paul ryan era that the republican party is the party of small government. and they didn't vote for the republican party in the last election cycle, even with paul ryan on the ticket. and, yes, it's possible that you could, you know, don't nominate mitt romney next time, get a truer conservative and so on and things will be different. ultimately if you look at opinion polls in the last election cycle, barack obama won the election because people thought, you know, he cared about people like us. that's a touchy feely kind of sentiment. it's not a conservative sounding sentiment but it's a sentiment that republican politicians have to deal with and that george w. bush, for all his many flaws, was better at dealing with than any leader of the party has been since. >> it also, though, it's not just brand purity because brand purity is not going to get us to a majority again. we got to be able to explain to middle-class americans, to working class americans, to people who've seen their wages fall over the past five years, how we'
to the senate and wanting to end up at 10 years. but there are some big changes in the paul ryan budget plan to get to 1 years. that will come on the medicare side that will be a big, tough change on the house side. >> we do have an online question coming in asking why a couple of you referenced private conversations you've had about a 10-year balance. why haven't those been public pronouncements that have come out? >> i think they have been somewhat public. they're going to become much more public. and there's more to this. it's also that 974 number, statute that that will continue to stay. in this -- someone comes back to your question, relevance right now may also be for those in influence, you know, those with the power in our leadership when they look members like myself in the eyes and say, here's where this goes. we're going to have the budget committee produce a 10-year balanced budget. we are going to stand behind those dollar apts in the sequestration legislation. we are going to hold firm. in many ways, in 90 days, this is going to be the ultimate test of the relevancy of those we
know, very brave ambassadors like ryan crocker, one of our very best, who it would be difficult to say, ryan, you can't go do this even though you decided you should do it. what we're trying to do is create a more ongoing discussion between our ambassadors, our bureaus back in the state department who are regional experts, and our security people so that at the very least no ambassador is taking an unnecessary risk, however that is defined. >> with regard to ambassador stevens, certainly it was brave of him to go to benghazi on the date he did. i have to ask you honestly, though, was there anything in his itinerary on the 10th or 11th that required his personal presence? >> he certainly thought so, congressman he did, of course, discuss this with his own security people. we do have regional security officers in these posts. they are the ones that an ambassador will turn. to he believes it was important for him to go to benghazi, there were a number of meetings that he was holding and some public events that he had on his schedule and you know, he was someone who really believed strongl
is here at your conference, young governors, ryan, we have rubio in congress, a whole slew of gun governors, a generation who is adept, you could say marinated in conservative philosophy. thinking very deeply about a new kind of conservatism but they for their own reasons, some personal, some they were simply too new and young and raw, weren't quite ready to not run. we had a weak field in the primaries, extremely weak, of whom romney was obviously the best and only possible presidential candidate. you he was -- but he was weaker than the ones sitting on the bench and who will be out there in 2016. that is the source of my optimism. but there was a case that could have been made and wasn't. i think that's largely the reason. >> he is a very good man, mitt romney, but you got a sense of him with the groucho marx line. i've got principles and if you don't like them, i've got other principles. it's not just walter mondale that's one of your vulnerabilities, there's also the -- >> thanks for bringing it up again. we're up to three now. >> there was a period of two, maybe three krautha
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)